From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4801 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2012 20:41:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 4793 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2012 20:41:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BJ,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:40:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3GKertq025879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:40:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3GKeqes009506; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8C83D4.7050807@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:42:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Sergio Durigan Junior , Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Create cleanups.[ch] References: <4F8BF983.2090204@redhat.com> <87r4vnzbkl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87r4vnzbkl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2 On 04/16/2012 09:06 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> This made me notice that make_my_cleanup was unexported, and made > Pedro> static in this patch, but note how that goes by mostly unnoticed > Pedro> (at least it was to me on first sight). > > I have long had the impression, based solely on reading the cleanup > code, that cleanups were intended to be used in other ways and then > never were. E.g., unchaining cleanups and attaching them to some other > object (say, replacing the existing objfile data destructor methods) > seems doable, but AFAIK is not ever done. Makes sense. It never occurred to me. > If anything is unused at this point, I'd say we can just delete it. Sorry if it sounded like I didn't agree with that; I definitely do. I only meant that it'd have preferred such change as a separate change. It's okay with me to not bother now. -- Pedro Alves